Read on Twitter
The treatment of @heathersavigny and her student as outlined in this article is *appalling*. https://twitter.com/heathersavigny/status/1295601161043677185 #MeToo 
We have all the elements of a classic tale of sexual misconduct:
(1) A staff member in a position of power assumes entitlement to sexual access: “the student, then 20, approached Professor Savigny saying she had been molested for a second time by the [male professor].”
(1) A staff member in a position of power assumes entitlement to sexual access: “the student, then 20, approached Professor Savigny saying she had been molested for a second time by the [male professor].”
(2) The assumption that an institution will have zero tolerance of sexual misconduct: The victim/survivor discloses to their university, hoping for justice, and supporter finds out “a PhD student reported witnessing the same academic molesting another female at a pub.”
(3) The feelings of institutional betrayal: “The male professor was suspended before being allowed back to work several months later... [The] university told his alleged victim he had been given a ‘firm slap on the wrists’.”
(4) The gravity of consequences: “the undergraduate... later attempted suicide due to the alleged assaults and the institution’s response” and “An academic... forced out of a scandal-hit university after helping a student who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a male professor.”
(5) . @heathersavigny puts it best: “I was trying to provide support for a student while at the same time, the university told me not to discuss the matter with her. But what was I supposed to do... ? I had a duty of care towards her.”
The moral we see again and again? It is the victims, survivors and supporters who really bear the burden of duty of care for our academic communities. Universities are struggling to stand up to their promises of zero tolerance.
It should *not* be on supporters or survivors to safeguard a community by speaking out. The responsibility for protection lies with the university, and the risk should lie with them too.
This shocking treatment shows how perilous it is to speak out even for the supporters of those subjected to sexual misconduct. It seems like a classic example of DARVO or “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender” https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html
And it isn't new. @CGMundell was calling out this kind of behaviour three years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/whistleblower-calls-on-universities-to-do-more-to-safeguard-students
It’s also important to note that the perpetrator is still in post. This is an important reminder that the perpetrator’s job is not usually at risk. In our qualitative study, Silencing Students, only 1/15 perpetrators lost their job: https://1752group.com/research/
… while in Power in the Academy we found that students would avoid lectures or even change careers in the wake of experiencing sexual misconduct: https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/nus-staff-student-sexual-misconduct-report
We know that this case is not necessarily typical of the sector, and some are doing much better on this issue. But it is definitely not an isolated example. How are we supposed to encourage staff and students to report sexual misconduct, when we have outcomes like this?
This is why we need a sector-wide response, rather than the patchy and variable approach that we have seen so far. Our guidelines are an attempt to achieve that: https://1752group.com/sector-guidance/
Thank you for speaking out @heathersavigny, and for supporting someone as they reported. It saddens us that you lost your job, and a student almost lost her life, while the perpetrator remains in position.
